Frederick Bates v. City of San Jose, California, et al.

The following questions are presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling affirming the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s in­ dependent action on the basis of collateral es­ toppel and law of the case conflicts with this Court’s precedent that under FRCP 60, res ju­ dicata must at times yield to an independent action in order to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling affirming the district court’s declaration that Petitioner is a vexatious litigant, and subjecting Peti­ tioner to a pre-filing screening order is arbi­ trary and capricious, and deprives Petitioner of his constitutional right of access to the courts, due process, equal protection of law, and equal treatment under the law. .A